About

Why are my books filled with dolphins that don't exist?

While browsing through public domain images shared by the Biodiversity Heritage Library on Flickr, I came across this dolphin -

 

 

"Elliot's Dolphin". Which, as far as I knew, does not exist.

When I started looking for more nonexistent dolphins in old books, I ended up finding several, and then a dozen. Turns out, hundreds of the unique individual cetacean species named in books throughout history no longer exist. In cetologist Tom Jefferson's 2021 paper Nomenclature of the dolphins, porpoises, and small whales: a review and guide to the early taxonomic literature, he sources and clarifies all the scientific names applied to delphinoid species post-Linnaeus. Of the total 358 delphinoid species named, only 50 are currently considered valid. And that's just delphinoids, never mind Baleen and Sperm Whales.

 

A footnote in A Book Of Whales (1900) alluding to Delphinus coronatus, a species described in 1812

 I have not found a singular solid answer regarding why, but I think multiples factors (especially the fact that cetaceans themselves are hard to observe from a distance) have contributed to the sheer amount of seemingly made-up species.

Many of these misbegotten species are what taxonomists call synonyms - that is, different people observed the same species and separately gave it a different name. Most of these cases have been cleared up in recent decades (the first recorded name for a species takes priority), but for a surprising amount of cetaceans, it isn't clear what living species is being described in these journal entries.

Throughout the 19th century, information about the biology of the world's oceans were limited. The few books and illustrations made about cetaceans were copied verbatim with the copiers having no way of verifying what the original seafarers saw, so inaccurate information and nonexistent dolphins would often persist through books for several decades.

What is a paper whale?

In a similar vein as paper towns and paper sons, these are whale species that only exist on paper. And while cetaceans are far from the only animal group to acquire many nomen dubium, their ecology makes them uniquely susceptible to it. My loose definition of a paper whale can include the following:

•          A species whose physical description differs significantly from any known cetacean species.

•         An anomalous individual which is treated as a unique species by its describer, i.e. a Right Whale with a tall dorsal fin.

•         A cetacean treated as a unique species on account of it being sighted far from its usual range, i.e. a Dusky Dolphin in Scandinavia.

•         A cetacean species treated as a cryptid or a cryptid that is described as compellingly cetacean-like.

      Intrigued by this phenomena, I decided to start a series of drawings where I'd read the original descriptions of these bygone cetaceans and draw them based on these descriptions. Many of these species have not been drawn since the 19th century and earlier, and some have not been drawn at all despite their peculiar features. My main focus is species that do not closely resemble any currently known species, so I'll likely skip obvious synonyms.

This blog will mainly serve as my own personal catalogue of these species as I draw them. It also gives me space to cite my sources and explain the creative decisions I considered while making the drawings. I'm far from an expert in cetacean art, so I apologize for any wonky or vague anatomy - I'm hoping this series will also encourage me to improve my skills.

 

FAQ

Q: This this a speculative evolution project?

A: No, all of these species were genuinely believed to have existed by at least one person, usually the scientist who wrote the first description of the animal. I did not make up any of these species myself.

 

Q: Are these species included in books as copyright traps, like paper towns and trap streets?

A: I’ve seen no indication that any of the species I’ve come across so far were deliberately fabricated as copyright traps, and most have been taken seriously and cited in later publications like Hershkovitz 1966 and Jefferson 2021.

 

Q: Are these whales cryptids?

A: This depends on your definition of "cryptid". The vast majority of these species were described by biologists and naturalists. This is in contrast to many cryptids who are born out of tall tales told by the public. The accounts of biologists are generally taken much more seriously by the scientific community – most biologists do not want to put their credibility on the line by needlessly describing fantastical creatures. If your definition of “cryptid” includes any dubious unproven animal, then yes, you could consider these animals cryptids. But most of the species I cover here have far more substantial academic paper trails then, say, mothman, which has not been taken seriously in a scientific capacity.

Q: How come so many non-existent whales.. exist?

A: Whales and dolphins are hard to recognize at sea at the best of times, and they are hard to capture to obtain holotype specimens. I suspect these are the two main reasons for so many seemingly unique species being described, especially in the Victorian Era and earlier, when the rules of taxonomy were not as clearly defined.

Genetically, cetaceans are also remarkably compatible between species, and wild hybrids are surprisingly common. Individuals born with unique color mutations have also been regularly observed. I don’t think all of these one-off sightings can be blamed on hybrids and mutations, but it’s certainly another possibility.